As mentioned by Andy P, the hiccough preventing our posting to the list
has been fixed so I can now post my reply from yesterday lunchtime
(although much will already have been clarified through other channels):
First let me apologise for the FAQ not being up immediately. It went
live yesterday morning and will grow over time as we get queries.
To answer some of the questions posted on this list so far:
> does that mean the Shibboleth to Athens gateway will be closed down in
August? / will shibboleth access to athens resource no longer be
available in August?
Gateway functionality is a part of OpenAthens and won't be turned off in
August. Institutions have the option to subscribe to OpenAthens at our
new reduced rates.
> someone else providing the shibb2athens gateway.
Due to the way any such gateway has to work, there must be an Athens
element for the gateway to link the Shibboleth source to, so a third
party would only add additional expense and administrative overhead.
Best regards,
Andy A
AJ Anderson
Eduserv Athens
access and identity management
[log in to unmask]
tel: +44 (0)1225 474303
fax: +44 (0)1225 474301
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/athens/
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alistair Young
Sent: 23 January 2008 10:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: LA ([Fwd: ])
wow! what does this mean?
--
mov eax,1
mov ebx,0
int 80h
---------------------------- Original Message
----------------------------
Subject:
From: "Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV administrator"
<[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, January 23, 2008 10:36
To: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
<[log in to unmask]>
A<[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:26:52 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: LA (Re: LA (mixed messages))
From: "Alistair Young" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Discussion list for Shibboleth developments"
<[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: :
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 130.246.193.104
Hi Andy, it was Al's original message I didn't get.
Alistair
--
mov eax,1
mov ebx,0
int 80h
> Alistair,
> I'm not sure if you are refering to my email or the message I was
responding to. My postings to the list were being moderated, which is
why it took until this morning to get thru to the list. This has now
been rectified (thanks Nicole). I'm not sure why you wouldn't have seen
Al's original posting.
>
> Andy
> --
> Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
> [log in to unmask]
> +44 (0)1225 474319
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alistair Young
Sent: 23 January 2008 09:54
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: LA (Re: LA (mixed messages))
>>
>> hmmm, I didn't get the original of this email (posted to the
>> list) - why would that be? hope I'm not missing some vital info
>>
>> Alistair
>>
>>
>> --
>> mov eax,1
>> mov ebx,0
>> int 80h
>>
>> > Al,
>> > I'll try and answer but coming from inside one of the two
>> > organisations concerned I'll concede that you may feel like
>> I haven't 'clarified'
>> > anything! :-)
>> >
>> > Clearly, you are witnessing a disagreement. Whether it is of the
school playground variety is a different matter. I tend to
>> disagree
>> > at this stage, though I'm sure something can be arranged if
>> necessary.
>> >
>> > Also clearly, the disagreement has to do with cost vs. value - the
cost at which we felt it was viable to offer the gateways was in
excess of the value the JISC chose to put on them - there was a
disagreement about price, pure and simple. Who was right
>> and who was
>> > wrong in that disagreement is another matter of course, as is the
issue of whether some middle ground could have been
>> reached. I'm not
>> > aware that we refused to negotiate (I could be wrong) but
>> in any case,
>> > from what I've seen, the gap between the two sides was such that I
doubt any negotiated agreement could have been reached even if a
longer period of negotiation had been allowed.
>> >
>> > Clearly, this is unfortunate for the community. We did not
>> take our
>> > side of the decision making lightly, at least as far as I
>> understand it.
>> > I'm sure the JISC would say the same. I'm equally sure that both
sides of the argument feel like they are taking the 'best'
>> decision in
>> > the circumstances. Sometimes things just don't work out.
>> >
>> > The bottom line, from our perspective as an educational charity, is
that we have to take not-for-profit business decisions around those
services that we believe to be of value to the community in
>> order to
>> > ensure the onging viability of the charity overall - we
>> can't simply
>> > provide services at well below our own costs.
>> >
>> > Andy
>> > --
>> > Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
>> > http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
>> > http://efoundations.typepad.com/
>> > [log in to unmask]
>> > +44 (0)1225 474319
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Discussion list for Shibboleth developments
>> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roberts A.L.
Sent: 22 January 2008 13:18
>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >> Subject: LA (mixed messages)
>> >>
>> >> Dear list,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can someone clarify who is actually not willing to
>> negotiate...? The
>> >> press releases from both sides say that the other is to
>> blame - see
>> >> below.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The JISC statement says:
>> >>
>> >> Eduserv had asked JISC for a non-negotiable price for the
>> provision
>> >> of the Gateway Services significantly above what the JISC Board
believed could be justified as a balanced or fair
>> expenditure within
>> >> the JISC services budget and as a value for money option for the
education community as a whole.
>> >>
>> >> The Eduserv statement says:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "The non-negotiable offer we received from the JISC did
>> not approach
>> >> the projected full economic cost of the service in
>> >> 2008/2009 or provide a sustainable basis for the future. "
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am I the only one that feels like they are witnessing a school
playground argument?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> AL
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Alexander Roberts
>> >>
>> >> Web Development Officer
>> >>
>> >> Library and Information Services
>> >>
>> >> Swansea University/Prifysgol Abertawe
>> >>
>> >> +44 (0)1792 513239
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Unless otherwise agreed expressly in writing by a senior manager of
Eduserv, this communication is to be treated as confidential and the
information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose
for which it has been sent.
If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient
of this communication, please contact the sender immediately.
No employee or agent is authorised to enter into any binding agreement
or contract on behalf of Eduserv or Eduserv Technologies Ltd., unless
that agreement is subsequently confirmed by the conclusion of a written
contract or the issue of a purchase order.
Eduserv (Limited by Guarantee) – company number 3763109 - and
Eduserv Technologies Ltd – company number – 4256630 - are both
companies incorporated in England and Wales and have their registered
offices at Queen Anne House, 11 Charlotte Street, Bath, BA1 2NE.
|
